Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fancy Refrigerator (talk | contribs) at 13:43, 5 July 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anmol Yogleela.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Architecture, buildings, construction, city planning and public spaces. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Architecture|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Architecture, buildings, construction, city planning and public spaces. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Architecture

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self-written vanity page, see WP:COI WP:RS WP:Notability (people)". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anmol Yogleela

Anmol Yogleela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage of this architect who is claimed to have created distinct architectural styles. This article also appears to be self-written. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Chapra Christ Church

Chapra Christ Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lots of broken links on the page, I can't find much to replace them and can't WP:V the details JMWt (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Kindly see the references prior to tag of deletion. Further this is a premium heritage institution of the district almost 185 years old and has separate commonsCategory which also made the article notable Pinakpani (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 2: three sentences about churches in Chapra, none of which are obviously this one (the origin date of the Roman Catholic church mentioned is different to that one the page)
    Ref 3: my browser says not to open as the link is dangerous
    Ref 4: is not obviously about this church and doesn't verify the contents of this page
    Ref 5: a parliamentary mention about the Church Mission Society which is a British church society and not obviously anything to do with German Protestants or Roman Catholics
    Ref 6: doesn't work for me
    Ref 7: about the King Edward School and Chapra Protestant church. Not a Roman Catholic church
    Ref 8: doesn't work for me
    Conclusion none of these refs WP:V the content on the page. It's not clear whether any of them are about the subject or not JMWt (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I have copy edited for translation problems, rescued deadlink citations, removed unsourced content or content that didn't seem to fit, and added info to expand the article. With regards to the AfD nomination, an article's content must be verifiable, but do not need to be online. Thus, we don't assume the content is wrong just because its source is not online. Also, MOS says to leave deadlink citations in place, so that is normal and not a problem. Thus, I don't believe the reasons behind the AfD are justifiable. Rublamb (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after the re-write the article is much clearer and now includes the related school and details of the christmas fair with references, some offline which is permitted. So exercising WP:AGF for offline sources, deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can only see the Google Books preview, but Bhattacharya 1981 seems only to have a trivial mention and doesn't contain the word "Meherpur", which concerns me as it apparently supports In the 19th century, Chapra, Nadia was the center of missionary works for the Meherpur subdivision of the undivided Bengal (now West Bengal, India.
  • The "Christian fair" article makes up a plurality of the citations, but is only vaguely about the church -- it's really about the fair. I'm only working from a translation, but I also can't see that it supports, as claimed, The four-day fair blends traditional Christian and Indian traditions and has some 20,000 participants each year (though it does mention that the fair includes a specific Indian practice, singing kirtan). Even then, it seems to be local news, which isn't normally evidence of notability.
  • The High School history page isn't independent, as the school was founded by the church: in any case, it's WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF. Even then, the mention of the church is trivial.
  • The Sessional Papers source has a single trivial mention -- and is a document from the British parliament from 1904, which may fall under WP:PRIMARY.
    I can't access the Diocese of Barrackpore source, but it seems likely to be a trivial/administrative mention rather than a detailed discussion.
That leaves only the Nadia District Gazetteer that I can fully vouch provides WP:SIGCOV (though even then it's not massive) within a source suitable for WP:GNG. If we only one good source provides significant coverage, the article should not be kept, but rather merged into an article about the town. I don't want to vote delete at this stage, as most of this is absence of evidence rather than secure evidence of a problem, but would be reassured if someone with access to the sources could overturn my impressions of their coverage. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I vote to keep this article because it provides valuable information about Chapra Christ Church, demonstrating its notability and relevance. With further research and reliable sources, the article can be improved to offer a more comprehensive overview of the church's history and significance. 2RDD (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: UndercoverClassicist's extant sourcing concerns need to be addressed to reach consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HEY. Sometimes all we need is to cut out the AI drivel and hallucinated sources, and touch up the page, and we have a start article. I'm impressed with the rescue, since I had no hope. Of course it needs more work for a rainy day. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I share UndercoverClassicist's concerns about the current sources. I have not been able to find a source which clearly gets this over a WP:GNG line. However a couple scholarly searches and book searches come up with at least mentions of the church including a 1904 sessional mention in British parliament. These might be mentions, but I'm confident someone with access could find something that would get this over the line. SportingFlyer T·C 20:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SC Geier House

SC Geier House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find reliable independent sources to support WP:GNG. This house is located in Angelino Heights Historic Preservation Overlay Zone but does not itself have any historic recognition. It is not on the National Register of Historic Places, nor is it a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument. Sharing lot lines with two Los Angeles Cultural Monuments doesn't give this house notability. There is no reasonable redirect target where a mention of the house could be made. (The article has been tagged as unsourced since 2016, when it was published.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete From what i can see here the article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NBUILDING. There is no significant independent coverage in reliable sources to show notability, and the house lacks any historic designation cause it is not on the National Register of Historic Places. Its location within the Angelino Heights HPOZ does not confer individual notability. After nearly a decade tagged as unsourced, there is no evidence that the subject warrants a standalone article. Deleting is very much appropriate. Icem4k (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juscelino Kubitschek de Oliveira Bridge collapse

Juscelino Kubitschek de Oliveira Bridge collapse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, User:EF5. I will move it in a bit and collapse this part! gidonb (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Lack of English language sourcing or poorly written prose are rarely valid reasons to delete an article on a notable subject, especially when it can simply be reverted to a better written version. I'm glad to see it has already been reverted. Owen× ☎ 19:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Abbasi Caravansarai, Bisotun

Shah Abbasi Caravansarai, Bisotun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is mostly made up of obvious AI-generated content that cannot be verified, as several of the links are broken and the rest are in Arabic. One section, "Analyzing Spatial and Social Dynamics of Caravanserais Using Space Syntax", is clearly made up. It is written in the format of a list, and is highly repetitive, containing very little useful information and talking at length about minor details. Buzzwords such as "vibrant", "cultural", and "enhance" compromise its encyclopedic tone. Since these features have ben present since the first version, this article cannot be reverted to a previous version to fix these issues, and a copyedit would require replacement of almost every section in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Somepinkdude (talk • contribs) 17:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it somehow does pass notability, it would still be better to restart from a redlink than to sift through what was accurate in the AI text and what was hallucinated. Bremps... 14:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and revert. Clearly notable after a simple scholar search. We should not delete this on AI grounds, we can simply revert to the 7 May version of the page if it is indeed notable. The page was started in 2017 so we're not in TNT land, and the "every version of the article" is clearly wrong: see [3]. I'd revert myself but don't want to disrupt the AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 22:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 19:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vásquez House

Vásquez House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. It's one of numerous old house. It was built, then it exists. Every locality have what they each consider historical thing and in the grand scheme of things, this building lacks globally relevant notability to have an article. Graywalls (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per SportingFlyer. A landmark does not need global relevancy to be notable, this is one of many historic landmark houses in California. Passes GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's listed as a California Historical Landmark, so that's notable enough for Wikipedia. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"presumed notable" simply for being listed I believe is for national level historic places like NRHP. Graywalls (talk) 06:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Ascension of Christ in Warsaw

Church of the Ascension of Christ in Warsaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, either in this article or the original in Polish. JohnMizuki (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I may personally disagree with the aesthetic and sytlistic observations above, it is a notable building from Polish architect pl:Marek Budzyński. See for example: Florian Urban "Postmodern architecture under socialism: the Ascension Church in Warsaw-Ursynów" The Journal of Architecture 25(3), 2020, pp 317-346 doi:10.1080/13602365.2020.1758747 and across multiple pages in Lidia Klein's "Political Postmodernisms: Architecture in Chile and Poland, 1970–1990" (Routledge 2023, ISBN 9781000860214). Satisfies WP:NBUILD. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more input on Goldsztajn's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Stadium#Spectator areas and seating. and merge viable content. There is consensus against a standalone article here, and while there is disagreement as to the merge/redirect target, there is nothing to prevent us from merging content to multiple locations. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium seating

Stadium seating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources, doesn't explain why this is called stadium seating - most venues have seating on a slope or steps. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appleby Court

Appleby Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not demonstrated. Google search returns only estate agent listings of apartments in the building. The two sources only describe it in passing (where the first link can be found on The Internet Archive}. Tæppa (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a rough consensus here that while the tone may be promotional, sources indicate notability. Editors are encouraged to reword or remove any promotional content. Owen× ☎ 12:10, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wael Al-Masri

Wael Al-Masri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional article. فيصل (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit#South Region. Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Patrick Church (Wyandotte)

St. Patrick Church (Wyandotte) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable parish church in metro Detroit. The only source provided is an official parish history, which is obviously non-independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing usable except a local news piece on its 155th anniversary, which is not enough on its own for a WP:GNG pass as a standalone page. Open to a redirect to List_of_churches_in_the_Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Detroit#South_Region, where it is mentioned, but bringing it to AfD since it has already been draftified and returned to mainspace without improvements, so I didn't think a WP:BLAR was appropriate in that situation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list article recommended by Dclemens1971. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow for further discussion and participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Architecture Proposed deletions


Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

The following pages are transcluded here following from relationships among WikiProjects

Other pages

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Architecture&oldid=1298906388"